Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1887-08-31
BAIL FOR r. 7. JONES'.

The following is a copy of the order OF
Judge Wallace allowing bail to r. T,
Jones, the celebrated triple murderer Of
Edgefield:
At a former term of the Court three
indictments charging the defendant with
murder were pending. Upon one OF these
he was tried and found guilty of man
slaughter, and sentenced to Imprisonment
in the State Penitentiary at hard labor fol
the period of twenty-five years. The pre-
siding Judge at that term signed an order
in each of the two remaining cases per-
mitting Jones to be discharged from Gus
tody and 60 thence without day.
From the sentence upon the verdict OF
guilty of m~anslaughter Jones has appealed
to the Supreme Court, and that appeal is
now pending. Pending that appeal his
counsel now makes the motion for bail.
According to the common law the Judg.
es of the State had the power to admit to
bail in all cases, eve after conviction, but
it was a power to be exercised with due
discretion, and, after conviction, with ex-
IRENE caution. Waite VS.. SatterWhite, goth
S. c., "a. The General Assembly of this
State, in 1884, altered the law as it then
stood, and by an Act approved Oath De-
cember, 1884, entitled an Act to 'regulate
appeals in criminal cases." provided as
follows: ''That in criminal cases service
of notice of appeal in accordance with law
shall operate as a stay of the execution OF
the sentence until the appeal is finally dis
posed Of" BY Section 2 of the Act it is
further provided "Pending such appeal
the defendant shall remain in confinement
unless he give bail in such sum and with
such s~ureties as to the Court shall seem
proper: Provided, however, bail shall not
be allowed in case the defendant has been
convicted of 4 capital crime" This Act
takes away all discretion from the Court
in matters of bail after conviction, save as
to the amount of bail and number and
description of sureties. 1t provides that
bail must not be allowed after conviction
of a capital felony, and gives to the defend
ant a right to it after conviction of any
lesser crime pending an appeal. l may
say that, but for the Act, I would not have
felt at liberty to grant bail in this case.
The common law left the matter to the
discretion of the Judge, to be exercised
after conviction with "eXtreme caution"
After a sentence of twenty-five years in
the Penitentiary extreme caution would
have required a refusal of the motion.
This defendant has been convicted of a
crime of less degree than a capital felony,
and under the Act above referred to has a
legal right to bail, and the only matter in
regard to which the Court has any discre-
ton is as to the amount of bail and the
sureties. The Constitution of the State
requires that excessive bail shall not be
required, nor should the bond be fixed at
so large a sum as to practically defeat the
operation of the statutes, for that would
be to deny to the defendant his legal
rights by indirection. Yet 1 must con-
slider, too, the appalling punishment that
threatens him and how lightly q small
pecuniary consideration would operate
under ordinary circumstances in bringing
most men to undergo it if a new trial
should be refused.
On motion of Mr.. w. II. Gary and Messrs.
Gary & Evans, it is ordered that the said
R. r. Jones be admitted to bail upon his
entering into recognizance before the clerk
of this Court in the sum of ten thousand
$4,000 dollars, with not less than two
nor more than five sureties, who reside
within the jurisdiction, or own sufficient
property within the jurisdiction of this
Court, each of whom is to justify before
said clerk in double the amount for which
he is bound, said recogniZance to be
conditional for the appearance of the said
r. IT. Jones at each succeeding term of the
Court until his appeal is finally disposed
of, and to remain and abide whatever the
said Court shall order, either in regard to a
new trial or to his undergoing the
punishment to which he has been
sentenced. w. II. WALLACE.
August %, 1887.